The LGIU has been actively involved, over a
number of years, in promoting a community leadership role for
local authorities that is now underpinned by the new power to
promote economic, social and environmental well-being contained
in the Local Government Act 2000 (referred to here as the power
of well-being).

The new power has great potential to develop
the community leadership role of local authorities in new and
creative ways. However, in order to tap this potential councils
require adequate support and guidance. In particular, the use
of the Secretary of State's power to amend or repeal enactments
under section 5 of the Act has been a stumbling block, in that
its scope is not fully understood. Councils need to know that
the effort required to make an application is likely to be justified
by a sympathetic response from the DTLR. What is required is a
simple, clear, speedy and transparent system to remove obstacles
to the exercise of the power of well-being. We understand that
there is a provisional agreement from the DTLR for the joint production,
together with the LGA, of a Tool Kit for implementing the provisions
of section 5. It would be helpful if this is done without delay
and provides for a simple process to eliminate obstacles.

One area of our concern is the absence of adequate
integration between the legal framework being developed for best
value under section 16 of the Local Government Act 1999, and the
power of well-being. In particular, draft guidance from the[1]
DTLR, on the proposed introduction of new powers to facilitate
the achievement of best value, fails to integrate those powers
with the pretty well identical power of well-being. This introduces
unnecessary complexity and confusion, and risks undermining the
community leadership programme by marginalising well-being activities
and creating an area of uncertainty and risk about use of the
well-being power. We urge the government to avoid the development
of two separate regimes to deal with best value and well-being.

NEW ARRANGEMENTSWITH RESPECTTO EXECUTIVES,
INCLUDING ELECTED
MAYORSANDTHE CABINET
MODEL

Councils have implemented new political structures
with innovation and determination to make them a success. There
are many areas of emerging good practice. This has been a major
change and needs time to develop. Given the negative results and
low turnout of mayoral referenda so far we do not believe the
Secretary of State's power to impose referenda should be used
further.

In our view it is sensible to keep new constitutions
under review and to address problems. Councils also may need to
make changes if there are petitions and referenda. However, our
view is that such constitutional review should be voluntary (unless
there is a successful referendum). The arrangements for councils
to choose to carry out consultation of their own design but for
civil servants to then attempt to assess consultation in which
they have not taken part, are less than satisfactory, and not
the best use of resources.

There are areas where fine-tuning of regulations
may be useful in the light of experience. For example, the Electoral
Commission has highlighted the problems councils experience in
providing public information in the immediate lead-up to a referendum.
We believe councils should be free to provide more substantial
information as long as it is neutral in character. There may be
a need for changes to the guidance on scrutiny to take greater
account of scrutiny of external organisations, in particular the
NHS. This should be developed in consultation with councils, and
we would be glad to contribute ideas. Access to information, including
the working of the Forward Plan and the definitions of key decisions,
should be kept under review, particularly in the light of externalisation
and the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

We would welcome the committee revisiting these
issues in a year's time when we feel we could submit a further
response.